Volunteer Summary
CONSORT Flow Diagram
Overall status
Characteristic | Overall1 | Control1 | Treatment1 |
|---|---|---|---|
time_point | |||
1st | 91 | 51 | 40 |
2nd | 67 | 34 | 33 |
1n | |||
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 911 | control, N = 511 | treatment, N = 401 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 90 | 40.53 ± 17.78 (21 - 148) | 41.46 ± 19.78 (22 - 148) | 39.36 ± 15.09 (21 - 70) | 0.580 |
Unknown | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
gender | 90 | 0.232 | |||
female | 64 (71%) | 33 (66%) | 31 (78%) | ||
male | 26 (29%) | 17 (34%) | 9 (22%) | ||
Unknown | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
occupation | 90 | 0.754 | |||
civil | 3 (3.3%) | 2 (4.0%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
clerk | 17 (19%) | 8 (16%) | 9 (22%) | ||
homemaker | 8 (8.9%) | 3 (6.0%) | 5 (12%) | ||
manager | 11 (12%) | 7 (14%) | 4 (10%) | ||
other | 10 (11%) | 4 (8.0%) | 6 (15%) | ||
professional | 13 (14%) | 10 (20%) | 3 (7.5%) | ||
retired | 4 (4.4%) | 2 (4.0%) | 2 (5.0%) | ||
service | 4 (4.4%) | 2 (4.0%) | 2 (5.0%) | ||
student | 18 (20%) | 11 (22%) | 7 (18%) | ||
unemploy | 2 (2.2%) | 1 (2.0%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
Unknown | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
working_status | 91 | 59 (65%) | 34 (67%) | 25 (62%) | 0.679 |
marital | 90 | 0.715 | |||
divorced | 3 (3.3%) | 1 (2.0%) | 2 (5.0%) | ||
married | 25 (28%) | 15 (30%) | 10 (25%) | ||
single | 61 (68%) | 33 (66%) | 28 (70%) | ||
widowed | 1 (1.1%) | 1 (2.0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
Unknown | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
marital_r | 90 | 0.866 | |||
married | 25 (28%) | 15 (30%) | 10 (25%) | ||
other | 4 (4.4%) | 2 (4.0%) | 2 (5.0%) | ||
single | 61 (68%) | 33 (66%) | 28 (70%) | ||
Unknown | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
education | 90 | 0.017 | |||
primary | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
secondary | 11 (12%) | 2 (4.0%) | 9 (22%) | ||
post-secondary | 15 (17%) | 11 (22%) | 4 (10%) | ||
university | 64 (71%) | 37 (74%) | 27 (68%) | ||
Unknown | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
university_edu | 90 | 64 (71%) | 37 (74%) | 27 (68%) | 0.499 |
Unknown | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
family_income | 90 | 0.335 | |||
0_10000 | 11 (12%) | 5 (10%) | 6 (15%) | ||
10001_20000 | 19 (21%) | 7 (14%) | 12 (30%) | ||
20001_30000 | 14 (16%) | 9 (18%) | 5 (12%) | ||
30001_40000 | 13 (14%) | 8 (16%) | 5 (12%) | ||
40000_above | 33 (37%) | 21 (42%) | 12 (30%) | ||
Unknown | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
high_income | 91 | 46 (51%) | 29 (57%) | 17 (42%) | 0.174 |
religion | 90 | 0.567 | |||
buddhism | 5 (5.6%) | 4 (8.0%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
catholic | 5 (5.6%) | 2 (4.0%) | 3 (7.5%) | ||
christianity | 33 (37%) | 19 (38%) | 14 (35%) | ||
nil | 45 (50%) | 25 (50%) | 20 (50%) | ||
other | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
taoism | 1 (1.1%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.5%) | ||
Unknown | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
religion_r | 90 | >0.999 | |||
christianity | 38 (42%) | 21 (42%) | 17 (42%) | ||
nil | 45 (50%) | 25 (50%) | 20 (50%) | ||
other | 7 (7.8%) | 4 (8.0%) | 3 (7.5%) | ||
Unknown | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
source | 90 | 0.023 | |||
bokss | 38 (42%) | 17 (34%) | 21 (52%) | ||
12 (13%) | 10 (20%) | 2 (5.0%) | |||
6 (6.7%) | 6 (12%) | 0 (0%) | |||
other | 17 (19%) | 8 (16%) | 9 (22%) | ||
refresh | 17 (19%) | 9 (18%) | 8 (20%) | ||
Unknown | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 911 | control, N = 511 | treatment, N = 401 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | 91 | 19.20 ± 3.04 (0 - 25) | 18.67 ± 3.40 (0 - 24) | 19.88 ± 2.40 (15 - 25) | 0.060 |
setv | 91 | 11.11 ± 2.05 (0 - 15) | 10.86 ± 2.24 (0 - 15) | 11.43 ± 1.75 (8 - 15) | 0.195 |
maks | 90 | 44.86 ± 3.84 (36 - 57) | 44.38 ± 3.56 (36 - 52) | 45.45 ± 4.14 (38 - 57) | 0.191 |
Unknown | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
ibs | 91 | 15.49 ± 2.69 (0 - 20) | 15.33 ± 2.97 (0 - 20) | 15.70 ± 2.31 (9 - 20) | 0.522 |
ers_e | 91 | 12.11 ± 1.93 (0 - 15) | 11.98 ± 2.28 (0 - 15) | 12.28 ± 1.40 (9 - 15) | 0.474 |
ers_r | 91 | 11.20 ± 1.90 (0 - 15) | 10.98 ± 2.08 (0 - 14) | 11.47 ± 1.63 (8 - 15) | 0.221 |
pss_pa | 91 | 44.57 ± 6.55 (0 - 54) | 43.82 ± 7.65 (0 - 54) | 45.52 ± 4.74 (31 - 54) | 0.221 |
pss_ps | 91 | 25.21 ± 7.67 (0 - 42) | 25.76 ± 8.19 (0 - 42) | 24.50 ± 7.00 (12 - 41) | 0.438 |
pss | 91 | 42.95 ± 11.90 (0 - 72) | 43.71 ± 12.73 (0 - 72) | 41.98 ± 10.83 (21 - 67) | 0.494 |
rki_responsible | 91 | 21.00 ± 4.57 (0 - 29) | 20.45 ± 5.18 (0 - 29) | 21.70 ± 3.60 (14 - 28) | 0.198 |
rki_nonlinear | 91 | 13.25 ± 3.06 (0 - 22) | 12.92 ± 3.14 (0 - 20) | 13.68 ± 2.95 (8 - 22) | 0.246 |
rki_peer | 91 | 20.21 ± 3.05 (0 - 25) | 20.08 ± 3.59 (0 - 25) | 20.38 ± 2.20 (16 - 25) | 0.647 |
rki_expect | 91 | 4.63 ± 1.17 (0 - 8) | 4.39 ± 1.25 (0 - 8) | 4.92 ± 1.00 (3 - 7) | 0.030 |
rki | 91 | 59.09 ± 8.56 (0 - 80) | 57.84 ± 10.17 (0 - 76) | 60.67 ± 5.64 (50 - 80) | 0.118 |
raq_possible | 91 | 15.41 ± 2.44 (0 - 20) | 15.31 ± 2.89 (0 - 20) | 15.53 ± 1.74 (12 - 20) | 0.684 |
raq_difficulty | 91 | 12.20 ± 1.91 (0 - 15) | 12.22 ± 2.24 (0 - 15) | 12.18 ± 1.41 (9 - 15) | 0.920 |
raq | 91 | 27.60 ± 4.15 (0 - 35) | 27.53 ± 4.97 (0 - 35) | 27.70 ± 2.84 (21 - 35) | 0.847 |
who | 91 | 14.88 ± 4.60 (0 - 25) | 14.76 ± 4.65 (0 - 25) | 15.03 ± 4.59 (6 - 25) | 0.791 |
phq | 91 | 3.36 ± 3.64 (0 - 18) | 3.29 ± 3.44 (0 - 14) | 3.45 ± 3.92 (0 - 18) | 0.841 |
gad | 91 | 2.87 ± 3.02 (0 - 12) | 2.90 ± 2.97 (0 - 12) | 2.83 ± 3.11 (0 - 12) | 0.905 |
nb_pcs | 90 | 51.16 ± 7.74 (25 - 63) | 51.92 ± 7.51 (25 - 63) | 50.20 ± 8.01 (27 - 61) | 0.297 |
Unknown | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
nb_mcs | 90 | 51.14 ± 8.25 (22 - 70) | 50.86 ± 8.31 (22 - 68) | 51.48 ± 8.27 (35 - 70) | 0.724 |
Unknown | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | (Intercept) | 18.7 | 0.384 | 17.9, 19.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.21 | 0.579 | 0.073, 2.34 | 0.039 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.088 | 0.408 | -0.888, 0.712 | 0.829 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.023 | 0.587 | -1.13, 1.17 | 0.969 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.047 | ||||
setv | (Intercept) | 10.9 | 0.276 | 10.3, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.562 | 0.417 | -0.255, 1.38 | 0.180 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.330 | 0.263 | -0.186, 0.846 | 0.215 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.177 | 0.378 | -0.918, 0.563 | 0.640 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
maks | (Intercept) | 44.4 | 0.556 | 43.3, 45.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.07 | 0.834 | -0.565, 2.71 | 0.202 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.029 | 0.501 | -0.952, 1.01 | 0.953 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.090 | 0.717 | -1.50, 1.32 | 0.900 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ibs | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.358 | 14.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.367 | 0.540 | -0.691, 1.42 | 0.498 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.257 | 0.307 | -0.345, 0.859 | 0.406 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.340 | 0.440 | -0.523, 1.20 | 0.443 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ers_e | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.262 | 11.5, 12.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.295 | 0.395 | -0.481, 1.07 | 0.458 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.458 | 0.204 | -0.857, -0.059 | 0.028 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.657 | 0.291 | 0.086, 1.23 | 0.028 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.031 | ||||
ers_r | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.245 | 10.5, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.495 | 0.369 | -0.228, 1.22 | 0.183 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.030 | 0.263 | -0.486, 0.546 | 0.910 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.035 | 0.379 | -0.707, 0.777 | 0.927 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
pss_pa | (Intercept) | 43.8 | 0.859 | 42.1, 45.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.70 | 1.295 | -0.836, 4.24 | 0.192 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.24 | 0.833 | -2.87, 0.397 | 0.143 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.182 | 1.196 | -2.16, 2.53 | 0.880 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
pss_ps | (Intercept) | 25.8 | 1.060 | 23.7, 27.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.26 | 1.599 | -4.40, 1.87 | 0.430 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.53 | 1.131 | -0.685, 3.75 | 0.180 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.52 | 1.626 | -4.71, 1.67 | 0.353 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
pss | (Intercept) | 43.7 | 1.616 | 40.5, 46.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.73 | 2.437 | -6.51, 3.05 | 0.479 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 3.18 | 1.646 | -0.047, 6.40 | 0.057 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.09 | 2.363 | -6.73, 2.54 | 0.379 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
rki_responsible | (Intercept) | 20.5 | 0.614 | 19.2, 21.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.25 | 0.925 | -0.565, 3.06 | 0.180 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.123 | 0.605 | -1.06, 1.31 | 0.840 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.580 | 0.869 | -2.28, 1.12 | 0.507 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
rki_nonlinear | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.443 | 12.1, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.753 | 0.668 | -0.556, 2.06 | 0.262 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.234 | 0.457 | -1.13, 0.662 | 0.610 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.445 | 0.657 | -0.842, 1.73 | 0.500 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
rki_peer | (Intercept) | 20.1 | 0.412 | 19.3, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.297 | 0.621 | -0.921, 1.51 | 0.634 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.101 | 0.389 | -0.662, 0.864 | 0.796 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.117 | 0.558 | -0.978, 1.21 | 0.835 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
rki_expect | (Intercept) | 4.39 | 0.150 | 4.10, 4.69 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.533 | 0.226 | 0.089, 0.977 | 0.020 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.208 | 0.197 | -0.178, 0.594 | 0.295 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.015 | 0.285 | -0.573, 0.543 | 0.959 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.067 | ||||
rki | (Intercept) | 57.8 | 1.145 | 55.6, 60.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.83 | 1.727 | -0.553, 6.22 | 0.104 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.003 | 0.938 | -1.83, 1.84 | 0.997 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.271 | 1.343 | -2.36, 2.90 | 0.841 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
raq_possible | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.316 | 14.7, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.211 | 0.477 | -0.723, 1.15 | 0.659 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.200 | 0.318 | -0.823, 0.422 | 0.531 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.612 | 0.456 | -0.281, 1.51 | 0.184 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
raq_difficulty | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.255 | 11.7, 12.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.041 | 0.385 | -0.795, 0.713 | 0.916 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.061 | 0.234 | -0.397, 0.519 | 0.794 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.144 | 0.335 | -0.513, 0.801 | 0.669 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
raq | (Intercept) | 27.5 | 0.551 | 26.5, 28.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.171 | 0.831 | -1.46, 1.80 | 0.838 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.153 | 0.473 | -1.08, 0.773 | 0.747 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.766 | 0.677 | -0.561, 2.09 | 0.262 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
who | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.637 | 13.5, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.260 | 0.960 | -1.62, 2.14 | 0.787 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.265 | 0.596 | -1.43, 0.904 | 0.658 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.819 | 0.855 | -0.857, 2.49 | 0.342 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
phq | (Intercept) | 3.29 | 0.488 | 2.34, 4.25 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.156 | 0.737 | -1.29, 1.60 | 0.833 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.150 | 0.375 | -0.586, 0.886 | 0.691 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.114 | 0.537 | -1.17, 0.939 | 0.832 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
gad | (Intercept) | 2.90 | 0.432 | 2.06, 3.75 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.077 | 0.652 | -1.35, 1.20 | 0.906 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.353 | 0.418 | -0.466, 1.17 | 0.400 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.204 | 0.600 | -1.38, 0.972 | 0.735 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
nb_pcs | (Intercept) | 51.9 | 1.046 | 49.9, 54.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.72 | 1.569 | -4.80, 1.35 | 0.275 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.755 | 0.902 | -2.52, 1.01 | 0.405 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.74 | 1.291 | -0.787, 4.27 | 0.181 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
nb_mcs | (Intercept) | 50.9 | 1.143 | 48.6, 53.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.622 | 1.715 | -2.74, 3.98 | 0.717 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.413 | 1.205 | -2.77, 1.95 | 0.733 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.325 | 1.731 | -3.07, 3.72 | 0.851 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
sets
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sets with group and time_point (formula: sets ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.67 (95% CI [17.91, 19.42], t(152) = 48.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [0.07, 2.34], t(152) = 2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [0.03, 0.88])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.71], t(152) = -0.22, p = 0.828; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.13, 1.17], t(152) = 0.04, p = 0.969; Std. beta = 8.66e-03, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
setv
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict setv with group and time_point (formula: setv ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.86 (95% CI [10.32, 11.40], t(152) = 39.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.38], t(152) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.85], t(152) = 1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.56], t(152) = -0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
maks
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict maks with group and time_point (formula: maks ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.38 (95% CI [43.29, 45.47], t(151) = 79.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.57, 2.71], t(151) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.01], t(151) = 0.06, p = 0.953; Std. beta = 7.50e-03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.32], t(151) = -0.13, p = 0.900; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ibs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ibs with group and time_point (formula: ibs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.63, 16.03], t(152) = 42.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.42], t(152) = 0.68, p = 0.497; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.86], t(152) = 0.84, p = 0.403; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.20], t(152) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_e
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_e with group and time_point (formula: ers_e ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.98 (95% CI [11.47, 12.49], t(152) = 45.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.07], t(152) = 0.74, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.86, -0.06], t(152) = -2.25, p = 0.025; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.49, -0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [0.09, 1.23], t(152) = 2.25, p = 0.024; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [0.05, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_r
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_r with group and time_point (formula: ers_r ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.98 (95% CI [10.50, 11.46], t(152) = 44.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.22], t(152) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.55], t(152) = 0.11, p = 0.910; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.78], t(152) = 0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_pa
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_pa with group and time_point (formula: pss_pa ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 43.82 (95% CI [42.14, 45.51], t(152) = 51.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-0.84, 4.24], t(152) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-2.87, 0.40], t(152) = -1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-2.16, 2.53], t(152) = 0.15, p = 0.879; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_ps
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_ps with group and time_point (formula: pss_ps ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.76 (95% CI [23.69, 27.84], t(152) = 24.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-4.40, 1.87], t(152) = -0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.68, 3.75], t(152) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.52, 95% CI [-4.71, 1.67], t(152) = -0.93, p = 0.350; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss with group and time_point (formula: pss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 43.71 (95% CI [40.54, 46.87], t(152) = 27.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.73, 95% CI [-6.51, 3.05], t(152) = -0.71, p = 0.478; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.18, 95% CI [-0.05, 6.40], t(152) = 1.93, p = 0.053; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-4.11e-03, 0.56])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.09, 95% CI [-6.73, 2.54], t(152) = -0.89, p = 0.376; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_responsible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_responsible with group and time_point (formula: rki_responsible ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.45 (95% CI [19.25, 21.65], t(152) = 33.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.56, 3.06], t(152) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.31], t(152) = 0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.12], t(152) = -0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_nonlinear
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_nonlinear with group and time_point (formula: rki_nonlinear ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.92 (95% CI [12.05, 13.79], t(152) = 29.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.56, 2.06], t(152) = 1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.66], t(152) = -0.51, p = 0.609; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.73], t(152) = 0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_peer
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_peer with group and time_point (formula: rki_peer ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.08 (95% CI [19.27, 20.89], t(152) = 48.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.51], t(152) = 0.48, p = 0.633; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.86], t(152) = 0.26, p = 0.795; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.98, 1.21], t(152) = 0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_expect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_expect with group and time_point (formula: rki_expect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 4.39 (95% CI [4.10, 4.69], t(152) = 29.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [0.09, 0.98], t(152) = 2.35, p = 0.019; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.08, 0.90])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.59], t(152) = 1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.55])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.54], t(152) = -0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki with group and time_point (formula: rki ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 57.84 (95% CI [55.60, 60.09], t(152) = 50.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.83, 95% CI [-0.55, 6.22], t(152) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.83])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.07e-03, 95% CI [-1.83, 1.84], t(152) = 3.28e-03, p = 0.997; Std. beta = 4.11e-04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-2.36, 2.90], t(152) = 0.20, p = 0.840; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_possible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_possible with group and time_point (formula: raq_possible ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.31 (95% CI [14.69, 15.93], t(152) = 48.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.15], t(152) = 0.44, p = 0.658; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.42], t(152) = -0.63, p = 0.528; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.51], t(152) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_difficulty
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_difficulty with group and time_point (formula: raq_difficulty ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.66e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.22 (95% CI [11.72, 12.72], t(152) = 47.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.71], t(152) = -0.11, p = 0.916; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.52], t(152) = 0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.80], t(152) = 0.43, p = 0.667; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq with group and time_point (formula: raq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.53 (95% CI [26.45, 28.61], t(152) = 49.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.80], t(152) = 0.21, p = 0.837; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.77], t(152) = -0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.56, 2.09], t(152) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
who
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict who with group and time_point (formula: who ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.76 (95% CI [13.52, 16.01], t(152) = 23.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.62, 2.14], t(152) = 0.27, p = 0.786; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.43, 0.90], t(152) = -0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-0.86, 2.49], t(152) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
phq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict phq with group and time_point (formula: phq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.10e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.29 (95% CI [2.34, 4.25], t(152) = 6.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.60], t(152) = 0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.89], t(152) = 0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.94], t(152) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
gad
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict gad with group and time_point (formula: gad ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.57e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 2.90 (95% CI [2.06, 3.75], t(152) = 6.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.35, 1.20], t(152) = -0.12, p = 0.906; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.17], t(152) = 0.85, p = 0.398; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.97], t(152) = -0.34, p = 0.734; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_pcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_pcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_pcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 51.92 (95% CI [49.87, 53.97], t(151) = 49.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.72, 95% CI [-4.80, 1.35], t(151) = -1.10, p = 0.272; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.18])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.76, 95% CI [-2.52, 1.01], t(151) = -0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.74, 95% CI [-0.79, 4.27], t(151) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_mcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_mcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_mcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 50.86 (95% CI [48.62, 53.10], t(151) = 44.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-2.74, 3.98], t(151) = 0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-2.77, 1.95], t(151) = -0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-3.07, 3.72], t(151) = 0.19, p = 0.851; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | null | 3 | 745.042 | 754.230 | -369.521 | 739.042 | |||
sets | random | 6 | 745.766 | 764.142 | -366.883 | 733.766 | 5.276 | 3 | 0.153 |
setv | null | 3 | 627.145 | 636.333 | -310.573 | 621.145 | |||
setv | random | 6 | 629.490 | 647.866 | -308.745 | 617.490 | 3.655 | 3 | 0.301 |
maks | null | 3 | 832.017 | 841.186 | -413.008 | 826.017 | |||
maks | random | 6 | 836.241 | 854.579 | -412.121 | 824.241 | 1.776 | 3 | 0.620 |
ibs | null | 3 | 698.262 | 707.450 | -346.131 | 692.262 | |||
ibs | random | 6 | 698.913 | 717.288 | -343.456 | 686.913 | 5.349 | 3 | 0.148 |
ers_e | null | 3 | 590.252 | 599.440 | -292.126 | 584.252 | |||
ers_e | random | 6 | 588.497 | 606.873 | -288.249 | 576.497 | 7.755 | 3 | 0.051 |
ers_r | null | 3 | 600.914 | 610.102 | -297.457 | 594.914 | |||
ers_r | random | 6 | 604.515 | 622.890 | -296.257 | 592.515 | 2.400 | 3 | 0.494 |
pss_pa | null | 3 | 989.469 | 998.656 | -491.734 | 983.469 | |||
pss_pa | random | 6 | 989.831 | 1,008.207 | -488.916 | 977.831 | 5.637 | 3 | 0.131 |
pss_ps | null | 3 | 1,064.361 | 1,073.549 | -529.180 | 1,058.361 | |||
pss_ps | random | 6 | 1,066.954 | 1,085.330 | -527.477 | 1,054.954 | 3.407 | 3 | 0.333 |
pss | null | 3 | 1,194.357 | 1,203.545 | -594.178 | 1,188.357 | |||
pss | random | 6 | 1,195.047 | 1,213.423 | -591.523 | 1,183.047 | 5.310 | 3 | 0.150 |
rki_responsible | null | 3 | 881.490 | 890.677 | -437.745 | 875.490 | |||
rki_responsible | random | 6 | 885.493 | 903.869 | -436.747 | 873.493 | 1.996 | 3 | 0.573 |
rki_nonlinear | null | 3 | 784.312 | 793.500 | -389.156 | 778.312 | |||
rki_nonlinear | random | 6 | 787.537 | 805.913 | -387.769 | 775.537 | 2.774 | 3 | 0.428 |
rki_peer | null | 3 | 749.498 | 758.686 | -371.749 | 743.498 | |||
rki_peer | random | 6 | 754.748 | 773.124 | -371.374 | 742.748 | 0.750 | 3 | 0.861 |
rki_expect | null | 3 | 472.847 | 482.034 | -233.423 | 466.847 | |||
rki_expect | random | 6 | 469.245 | 487.620 | -228.622 | 457.245 | 9.602 | 3 | 0.022 |
rki | null | 3 | 1,058.101 | 1,067.289 | -526.050 | 1,052.101 | |||
rki | random | 6 | 1,060.790 | 1,079.166 | -524.395 | 1,048.790 | 3.311 | 3 | 0.346 |
raq_possible | null | 3 | 675.090 | 684.277 | -334.545 | 669.090 | |||
raq_possible | random | 6 | 677.986 | 696.361 | -332.993 | 665.986 | 3.104 | 3 | 0.376 |
raq_difficulty | null | 3 | 594.565 | 603.752 | -294.282 | 588.565 | |||
raq_difficulty | random | 6 | 599.743 | 618.119 | -293.871 | 587.743 | 0.822 | 3 | 0.844 |
raq | null | 3 | 831.252 | 840.440 | -412.626 | 825.252 | |||
raq | random | 6 | 835.139 | 853.514 | -411.569 | 823.139 | 2.113 | 3 | 0.549 |
who | null | 3 | 886.696 | 895.884 | -440.348 | 880.696 | |||
who | random | 6 | 891.223 | 909.599 | -439.612 | 879.223 | 1.473 | 3 | 0.689 |
phq | null | 3 | 777.993 | 787.181 | -385.997 | 771.993 | |||
phq | random | 6 | 783.793 | 802.169 | -385.897 | 771.793 | 0.200 | 3 | 0.978 |
gad | null | 3 | 767.378 | 776.566 | -380.689 | 761.378 | |||
gad | random | 6 | 772.475 | 790.851 | -380.238 | 760.475 | 0.903 | 3 | 0.825 |
nb_pcs | null | 3 | 1,025.885 | 1,035.054 | -509.943 | 1,019.885 | |||
nb_pcs | random | 6 | 1,029.511 | 1,047.848 | -508.755 | 1,017.511 | 2.374 | 3 | 0.498 |
nb_mcs | null | 3 | 1,074.650 | 1,083.819 | -534.325 | 1,068.650 | |||
nb_mcs | random | 6 | 1,080.304 | 1,098.641 | -534.152 | 1,068.304 | 0.346 | 3 | 0.951 |
Post hoc analysis text
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
sets | 1st | 51 | 18.67 ± 2.74 | 40 | 19.88 ± 2.74 | 0.039 | -0.693 | ||
sets | 2nd | 34 | 18.58 ± 2.58 | 0.051 | 33 | 19.81 ± 2.66 | 0.038 | 0.057 | -0.707 |
setv | 1st | 51 | 10.86 ± 1.97 | 40 | 11.42 ± 1.97 | 0.180 | -0.504 | ||
setv | 2nd | 34 | 11.19 ± 1.82 | -0.296 | 33 | 11.58 ± 1.89 | -0.137 | 0.398 | -0.345 |
maks | 1st | 50 | 44.38 ± 3.93 | 40 | 45.45 ± 3.93 | 0.202 | -0.506 | ||
maks | 2nd | 34 | 44.41 ± 3.61 | -0.014 | 33 | 45.39 ± 3.76 | 0.029 | 0.278 | -0.464 |
ibs | 1st | 51 | 15.33 ± 2.56 | 40 | 15.70 ± 2.56 | 0.498 | -0.283 | ||
ibs | 2nd | 34 | 15.59 ± 2.31 | -0.199 | 33 | 16.30 ± 2.43 | -0.461 | 0.225 | -0.546 |
ers_e | 1st | 51 | 11.98 ± 1.87 | 40 | 12.27 ± 1.87 | 0.458 | -0.345 | ||
ers_e | 2nd | 34 | 11.52 ± 1.67 | 0.536 | 33 | 12.47 ± 1.77 | -0.233 | 0.025 | -1.114 |
ers_r | 1st | 51 | 10.98 ± 1.75 | 40 | 11.48 ± 1.75 | 0.183 | -0.440 | ||
ers_r | 2nd | 34 | 11.01 ± 1.65 | -0.026 | 33 | 11.54 ± 1.70 | -0.057 | 0.197 | -0.471 |
pss_pa | 1st | 51 | 43.82 ± 6.13 | 40 | 45.52 ± 6.13 | 0.191 | -0.481 | ||
pss_pa | 2nd | 34 | 42.59 ± 5.67 | 0.350 | 33 | 44.47 ± 5.89 | 0.298 | 0.185 | -0.533 |
pss_ps | 1st | 51 | 25.76 ± 7.57 | 40 | 24.50 ± 7.57 | 0.430 | 0.262 | ||
pss_ps | 2nd | 34 | 27.30 ± 7.13 | -0.317 | 33 | 24.51 ± 7.34 | -0.003 | 0.118 | 0.576 |
pss | 1st | 51 | 43.71 ± 11.54 | 40 | 41.98 ± 11.54 | 0.479 | 0.247 | ||
pss | 2nd | 34 | 46.88 ± 10.76 | -0.454 | 33 | 43.06 ± 11.14 | -0.155 | 0.155 | 0.546 |
rki_responsible | 1st | 51 | 20.45 ± 4.38 | 40 | 21.70 ± 4.38 | 0.180 | -0.486 | ||
rki_responsible | 2nd | 34 | 20.57 ± 4.06 | -0.048 | 33 | 21.24 ± 4.22 | 0.178 | 0.510 | -0.260 |
rki_nonlinear | 1st | 51 | 12.92 ± 3.16 | 40 | 13.67 ± 3.16 | 0.262 | -0.387 | ||
rki_nonlinear | 2nd | 34 | 12.69 ± 2.96 | 0.120 | 33 | 13.89 ± 3.06 | -0.108 | 0.105 | -0.615 |
rki_peer | 1st | 51 | 20.08 ± 2.94 | 40 | 20.38 ± 2.94 | 0.634 | -0.180 | ||
rki_peer | 2nd | 34 | 20.18 ± 2.71 | -0.061 | 33 | 20.59 ± 2.82 | -0.132 | 0.542 | -0.251 |
rki_expect | 1st | 51 | 4.39 ± 1.07 | 40 | 4.93 ± 1.07 | 0.020 | -0.620 | ||
rki_expect | 2nd | 34 | 4.60 ± 1.05 | -0.242 | 33 | 5.12 ± 1.06 | -0.225 | 0.047 | -0.603 |
rki | 1st | 51 | 57.84 ± 8.18 | 40 | 60.67 ± 8.18 | 0.104 | -0.718 | ||
rki | 2nd | 34 | 57.85 ± 7.34 | -0.001 | 33 | 60.95 ± 7.75 | -0.070 | 0.095 | -0.787 |
raq_possible | 1st | 51 | 15.31 ± 2.26 | 40 | 15.53 ± 2.26 | 0.658 | -0.156 | ||
raq_possible | 2nd | 34 | 15.11 ± 2.10 | 0.148 | 33 | 15.94 ± 2.18 | -0.305 | 0.117 | -0.610 |
raq_difficulty | 1st | 51 | 12.22 ± 1.82 | 40 | 12.18 ± 1.82 | 0.916 | 0.041 | ||
raq_difficulty | 2nd | 34 | 12.28 ± 1.67 | -0.062 | 33 | 12.38 ± 1.74 | -0.208 | 0.804 | -0.105 |
raq | 1st | 51 | 27.53 ± 3.93 | 40 | 27.70 ± 3.93 | 0.838 | -0.086 | ||
raq | 2nd | 34 | 27.38 ± 3.56 | 0.077 | 33 | 28.31 ± 3.74 | -0.308 | 0.296 | -0.470 |
who | 1st | 51 | 14.76 ± 4.55 | 40 | 15.03 ± 4.55 | 0.787 | -0.103 | ||
who | 2nd | 34 | 14.50 ± 4.17 | 0.105 | 33 | 15.58 ± 4.35 | -0.220 | 0.303 | -0.428 |
phq | 1st | 51 | 3.29 ± 3.49 | 40 | 3.45 ± 3.49 | 0.833 | -0.099 | ||
phq | 2nd | 34 | 3.44 ± 3.10 | -0.095 | 33 | 3.49 ± 3.29 | -0.023 | 0.958 | -0.026 |
gad | 1st | 51 | 2.90 ± 3.09 | 40 | 2.83 ± 3.09 | 0.906 | 0.043 | ||
gad | 2nd | 34 | 3.26 ± 2.85 | -0.199 | 33 | 2.97 ± 2.96 | -0.085 | 0.694 | 0.158 |
nb_pcs | 1st | 50 | 51.92 ± 7.40 | 40 | 50.20 ± 7.40 | 0.275 | 0.453 | ||
nb_pcs | 2nd | 34 | 51.17 ± 6.73 | 0.199 | 33 | 51.19 ± 7.04 | -0.260 | 0.990 | -0.006 |
nb_mcs | 1st | 50 | 50.86 ± 8.08 | 40 | 51.48 ± 8.08 | 0.717 | -0.121 | ||
nb_mcs | 2nd | 34 | 50.45 ± 7.63 | 0.080 | 33 | 51.40 ± 7.84 | 0.017 | 0.617 | -0.184 |
Between group
sets
1st
t(119.88) = 2.09, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.06 to 2.36)
2st
t(140.72) = 1.92, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.04 to 2.50)
setv
1st
t(112.88) = 1.35, p = 0.180, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.39)
2st
t(134.26) = 0.85, p = 0.398, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.28)
maks
1st
t(109.34) = 1.28, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.72)
2st
t(129.60) = 1.09, p = 0.278, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.80 to 2.76)
ibs
1st
t(107.73) = 0.68, p = 0.498, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.44)
2st
t(127.97) = 1.22, p = 0.225, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.85)
ers_e
1st
t(103.91) = 0.74, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.08)
2st
t(122.24) = 2.27, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -1.11, 95% CI (0.12 to 1.78)
ers_r
1st
t(120.86) = 1.34, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.22)
2st
t(141.47) = 1.30, p = 0.197, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.34)
pss_pa
1st
t(113.93) = 1.31, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.86 to 4.27)
2st
t(135.37) = 1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.91 to 4.68)
pss_ps
1st
t(120.23) = -0.79, p = 0.430, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-4.43 to 1.90)
2st
t(140.99) = -1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-6.28 to 0.71)
pss
1st
t(116.94) = -0.71, p = 0.479, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-6.56 to 3.09)
2st
t(138.27) = -1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-9.12 to 1.47)
rki_responsible
1st
t(114.89) = 1.35, p = 0.180, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.58 to 3.08)
2st
t(136.34) = 0.66, p = 0.510, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.33 to 2.67)
rki_nonlinear
1st
t(117.83) = 1.13, p = 0.262, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.08)
2st
t(139.05) = 1.63, p = 0.105, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.26 to 2.65)
rki_peer
1st
t(112.41) = 0.48, p = 0.634, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.53)
2st
t(133.75) = 0.61, p = 0.542, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.75)
rki_expect
1st
t(139.25) = 2.35, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.09 to 0.98)
2st
t(150.63) = 2.00, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.03)
rki
1st
t(105.82) = 1.64, p = 0.104, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.59 to 6.26)
2st
t(125.22) = 1.68, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-0.55 to 6.75)
raq_possible
1st
t(116.05) = 0.44, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.16)
2st
t(137.45) = 1.58, p = 0.117, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.86)
raq_difficulty
1st
t(110.80) = -0.11, p = 0.916, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.72)
2st
t(131.90) = 0.25, p = 0.804, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.93)
raq
1st
t(107.72) = 0.21, p = 0.838, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.48 to 1.82)
2st
t(127.96) = 1.05, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.70)
who
1st
t(111.92) = 0.27, p = 0.787, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.64 to 2.16)
2st
t(133.20) = 1.03, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.98 to 3.14)
phq
1st
t(103.58) = 0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.62)
2st
t(121.69) = 0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.59)
gad
1st
t(113.72) = -0.12, p = 0.906, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.37 to 1.21)
2st
t(135.16) = -0.39, p = 0.694, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.69 to 1.13)
nb_pcs
1st
t(107.30) = -1.10, p = 0.275, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-4.83 to 1.39)
2st
t(126.98) = 0.01, p = 0.990, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-3.31 to 3.35)
nb_mcs
1st
t(118.92) = 0.36, p = 0.717, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.77 to 4.02)
2st
t(139.11) = 0.50, p = 0.617, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.79 to 4.68)
Within treatment group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(69.96) = -0.16, p = 0.877, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.91 to 0.78)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(68.87) = 0.56, p = 0.576, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.69)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(68.46) = -0.12, p = 0.906, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.97)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(68.07) = 1.89, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.23)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(67.47) = 0.95, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.62)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(70.11) = 0.24, p = 0.813, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.61)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(69.04) = -1.23, p = 0.224, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-2.77 to 0.66)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(70.01) = 0.01, p = 0.991, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-2.32 to 2.35)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(69.50) = 0.64, p = 0.525, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.30 to 4.47)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(69.18) = -0.73, p = 0.466, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.70 to 0.79)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(69.64) = 0.45, p = 0.656, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.15)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(68.80) = 0.54, p = 0.588, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.02)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(73.20) = 0.94, p = 0.351, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.60)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(67.77) = 0.29, p = 0.776, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.65 to 2.19)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(69.36) = 1.26, p = 0.213, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.07)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(68.55) = 0.85, p = 0.397, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.69)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(68.07) = 1.26, p = 0.211, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.58)
who
1st vs 2st
t(68.73) = 0.90, p = 0.370, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.78)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(67.42) = 0.09, p = 0.927, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.80)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(69.00) = 0.35, p = 0.729, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.01)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(68.15) = 1.07, p = 0.289, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.84)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(69.93) = -0.07, p = 0.944, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.57 to 2.39)
Within control group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(74.28) = -0.22, p = 0.829, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.73)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(72.29) = 1.25, p = 0.215, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.86)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(71.27) = 0.06, p = 0.953, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.03)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(70.80) = 0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.87)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(69.68) = -2.25, p = 0.028, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-0.86 to -0.05)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(74.56) = 0.11, p = 0.911, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.56)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(72.59) = -1.48, p = 0.143, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.90 to 0.43)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(74.38) = 1.35, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.73 to 3.79)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(73.45) = 1.93, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.11 to 6.47)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(72.86) = 0.20, p = 0.840, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.33)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(73.70) = -0.51, p = 0.611, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.15 to 0.68)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(72.16) = 0.26, p = 0.796, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.68 to 0.88)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(79.95) = 1.05, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.60)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(70.24) = 0.00, p = 0.997, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.87 to 1.88)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(73.19) = -0.63, p = 0.531, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.43)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(71.69) = 0.26, p = 0.795, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.53)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(70.80) = -0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.79)
who
1st vs 2st
t(72.02) = -0.44, p = 0.659, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.46 to 0.93)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(69.58) = 0.40, p = 0.691, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.90)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(72.53) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.19)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(70.70) = -0.84, p = 0.406, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-2.56 to 1.05)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(73.86) = -0.34, p = 0.734, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.82 to 2.00)